Shared Governance Appeal Procedure

Type

Procedure

Category

Institutional Integrity

Department

Human Resources

Phone

(541) 463-5115

Primary Contact

Shane Turner

Contact Email

Narrative

The shared governance appeal process provides stakeholders the opportunity to appeal the way in which decisions are made. Decisions made by the Lane Board of Education and the college president are exempt from this appeal process.

According to board policy BP 325 College Governance and Governance System Principles, stakeholders who are directly and significantly affected by decisions are guaranteed:

  1. A timely opportunity to be informed and involved in the deliberations in order to influence the formulation of decisions;
  2. The right to be represented in representative forums by persons selected by the stakeholder group; and
  3. Information about the reasoning and rationale for decisions.

Appeals filed under this process will be reviewed according to the three standards listed above. If it is determined that these standards were violated, the vice president or president may direct that another decision-making process be followed in the future or may refer the current decision for reconsideration. The vice president or president will not reverse decisions and the filing of an appeal generally will not stop the implementation of a decision.

Appeal Process

The steps in the appeal process are described below.

Step 1: Within 10 working days of knowledge of the decision, the appeal shall be put in writing and submitted to the decision-maker.

Step 2: Within seven working days of receipt of the appeal, the decision-maker shall respond in writing to the appeal. The vice president may grant an extension of up to seven working days for review of the appeal.

Step 3: The stakeholder may appeal the decision-maker's response. Within seven working days of receipt of the decision-maker's response, the appeal shall be put in a written statement and submitted to the appropriate vice president (or the president if the vice president is the decision-maker). The statement shall include answers to the questions:

  • What was the decision?
  • When were you notified of this decision?
  • What do you understand the decision-making process to have been?
  • Who was the decision-maker?
  • How are you affected by this decision?
  • On what date did you speak to the decision-maker(s) about your concerns? (Please summarize the discussion that took place).
  • Which section of the shared governance policy was violated? (See the three shared governance standards listed in paragraph two of this procedure).

The decision-maker(s) named shall be provided a copy of the appeal.

Step 4: Within seven working days of receipt of the appeal, the vice president/president shall make a decision about the appeal and provide written notification to the parties. This notification shall describe the reasoning and rationale for the vice president/president's decision. The president may grant an extension of up to seven working days for review of the appeal. The vice president/president may choose to facilitate problem-solving among the parties during this review period.

Step 5: Either the stakeholder or the original decision-maker(s) may appeal the vice president's decision. The appeal shall be submitted in writing to the president within seven working days of receipt of the vice president's decision. If the vice president fails to make a decision within the timelines allowed, this fact may also be appealed by either party. The appeal must be submitted in writing to the president within seven working days of the decision-making deadline specified in Step 4.

Step 6: Within seven working days of receipt of the appeal, the president shall make a decision and provide written notification to the parties. This notification shall describe the reasoning and rationale for the president's decision. The board may grant additional extensions for the president's review of the appeal. The president's decision shall be final.

Date Adopted

Monday, January 1, 2001

Date Last Reviewed

Sunday, September 1, 2002